• spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          fair, but wasn’t obvious to me so i figured i’d share my findings for others who didn’t get the joke.

    • kryptonite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is a truth universally acknowledged that a medical intervention justified by observational data must be in want of verification through a randomised controlled trial.

      This was a great read. Thanks.

    • swiftcasty@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      In other words (and more neutrally), there have not been any randomized controlled trials of parachute intervention, so we do not have data to say whether they would work or not.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Imagine being part of that experiment.

        “Here’s your parachute. Hope you aren’t part of the control group!”

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is satirizing the view of people who feel observational studies - studies in which everyone is treated with the experimental medicine and the response of the entire group is evaluated - aren’t clear enough or rigorous enough to prove that a drug works. True, these studies sometimes lack the clarity of a perfect randomized double-blind study, but as we see with the parachute, sometimes the results are pretty clear anyway. And in a life-or-death situation, no one wants to take the chance on a placebo. In other words, the “advocates of evidence based medicine” are being “challenged” with a little sarcasm. Inglis-Arkell 2014